Dempsey kos Wills in 2 rounds 1924

No, I rate Dempsey but think that Wills is overated.

 

He probably rates a bit higher than as it stands, but if Wills is the only additional win that he had in 7 years, then he still doesn't crack into my top 5.

 

IF IF IF Dempsey beat Wills my list would look like:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Marciano
5. Jack Johnson
6. Tyson
7. Liston
8. Dempsey
9. Holmes
10. Holyfield

Currently Dempsey doesn't make my top 10 and is below Wills in my list at no12

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Marciano
5. Jack Johnson
6. Tyson
7. Liston
8. Holmes
9. Wills
10. Holyfield
11. Joe Frazier
12. Jack Dempsey
13. George Foreman
14. Ezzard Charles
15. James J. Jeffries
16. Bowe
17. Norton
18. Patterson
19. Langford
20. Walcott

 

He'd prolly chip in at 10 or 11. If he lost he'd be 15-20 at best.

 

Top 5, no.

Top 10, yes.

 

Yes but the man 1 place in front of Jeffries on my list is Charles who beat Louis & Walcott, both better than anyone Jeffries beat (both faced past their best greats). Jeffries reign against old past prime champs as a whole is hurt by avoiding Johnson and losing to him later (even if the Jeffries brigade try to erase that loss). Jeffries skills also are primitive compared to them men in front of him.

BTW my list is from Jeffries era onwards

 

i dont think charles should be rated over walcott at heavweight, but hey thats my opinion, if u want reasoning i could give you very solid evidence why walcott was the better HEAVYWEIGHT than charles.




if dempsey flattened wills in 2 rounds, he would be my number 3 or 4 all time. since he didnt, he stands at number 8

 

He's between 9 and 12 now (in the group that also features Liston, Frazier, Holyfield). If he'd battered Wills, he'd definitely be the '9' guy (or maybe challenging for Top 5 honours). If lost, probably around 15th or so.

 

Interested to hear. Charles got the better head to head without a doubt. He arguably won 3 fights and was far far more consistant as a HW during his prime. During Walcotts prime he won and lost. Walcott simply comes across as having too many holes in his game time and again. Against Simon, Louis, Charles, Marciano, Maxim. Even if you give him the first Louis fight he still doesn't rank ahead of Charles.

Not only did Charles get better of the head-heads he seemed to do better against common opponents. Ie Walcott losing to Maxim & Layne and beating Louis very clearly

Walcott despite his sublime skills never really went much longer than a year unbeaten and had some poor losses. Charles had some poor losses only after he was pretty much shot

 

A victory over Wills would make Dempsey a very strong candidate for top five as he would then have dominated the 1918-1924 era. His ultimate rating if the fight were held in 1924 might depend on how far Wills is judged to have slipped. A victory over Wills on the way up in 1918, or in 1920, when Wills was at or near his peak would clinch a top four spot for me and open a valid debate for a spot as high as #2.
The problem as is--Wills defeated Fulton, Firpo, Gunboat Smith, John Lester Johnson, and Willie Meehan. Tunney defeated Gibbons, Carpentier, and Levinsky. Greb defeated Gibbons, Miske, Brennan, Levinsky and Gunboat Smith. Dempsey lost to Tunney and did not fight Wills or Greb. He simply did not defeat the best of his era.

 

You have to say so.